Well I can tell you that this season

(and ignoring first half injury enforced substitutions at Ipswich and against Cardiff) our record in games after his first substitution is F3 A8. We have not gained any points through goals scored after substitutions have been made and we have lost 3 (being last night where we were winning when he made the change and then lost).

The last time we gained points as a consequence of a change in scoreline after Neil's first substitution in a match was in January against Southampton at home.

Overall we have gained points through changes in the score after his first substitution on 8 occasions during his reign (half of which in the initial promotion season) and we have lost points on 9 occasions (6 of which have been since Jan 2016) with an overall goal difference of -14 (F29 A43).

Overall I would say that's quite overwhelming and the evidence suggests that rather than learning the impact of his subs has got worse over the last 9 months.

Posted By: Jim on September 29th 2016 at 10:13:26

Message Thread

What would people generally expect the effect of substitutions to be on games (NCFC) - Jim, Sep 29, 09:51:24
- Out of interest ... (NCFC) - loz, Sep 29, 10:02:42
  - Well I can tell you that this season (NCFC) - Jim, Sep 29, 10:13:26
    - How many have we consolidated what we had? Like Forest? (n/m) (NCFC) - Azteca, Sep 29, 10:26:00
      - Exactly that doesn't suit his agenda though does it (n/m) (NCFC) - loz, Sep 29, 10:31:31
        
        Depends what you mean by consolidated? (NCFC) - Jim, Sep 29, 10:37:25
        
        Points (n/m) (NCFC) - Azteca, Sep 29, 10:38:42
        
        Points exactly this (n/m) (NCFC) - loz, Sep 29, 10:40:11
        
        As i said previously last night is the only time its costs us points (NCFC) - Jim, Sep 29, 10:46:57
        
        Yes, but how many points consolidated when subs been made? (n/m) (NCFC) - Azteca, Sep 29, 10:49:45
        
        Well since we've made subs in every game and we've got 20 points presumably (NCFC) - Jim, Sep 29, 10:54:52
        
        Doesn't sound too shabby then really. 20 secured, 3 lost. (n/m) (NCFC) - Azteca, Sep 29, 11:07:50
        
        Hardly secured. In many cases i would say jeopardised (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Sep 29, 11:19:39
        
        Well maybe you would, but the image you're trying to create is that (NCFC) - Azteca, Sep 29, 11:28:14
        
        No I'm just saying they rarely improve us or positively impact on the game (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Sep 29, 12:05:22
        
        He will ignore that just as he is choosing... (NCFC) - loz, Sep 29, 10:53:52
        
        And without the Mulumbu sub at Ipswich we probably win the game (NCFC) - Jim, Sep 29, 10:55:46
        
        Manager in some right some wrong shocker (n/m) (NCFC) - loz, Sep 29, 10:58:30
    - It's a simplistic way of looking at things though ... (NCFC) - loz, Sep 29, 10:20:16
      - We are grinding our results without playing well I will give him that (NCFC) - Jim, Sep 29, 10:30:50
        
        So much nonsense ... (NCFC) - loz, Sep 29, 10:35:54
    - Sorry that should say underwhelming not overwhelming (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Sep 29, 10:14:38

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.